[Closed] Cycle path construction guidelines?

[img] [/img]

couldnt resist 😉

My bike's nowhere near that good!

Maximum of 6mm upstand for dropped crossings. Is it a new construction that's already potholed, or an older one that's potholed and not been fixed?

I'm afraid I don't know the guidelines, but from what I've seen it is necessary for a pole to be placed in the path every 50 metres, the cyclist to dismount regularly, and as the road approaches a choke point, the cyclist must reduce their width to 6".

So judging by that your kerbstone is a cunningly designed auto dismount feature of the path. 🙂

Good luck.

Trashed your watch on Monday.

Dinged your wheel on Tuesday.

Dude, stay in bed tomorrow.

Here's the guide for Nottinghamshire; bits were lifted from the Sustrans guide and other advice:
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=122435

Sounds like the issue is maintenance, though. Presume you're not in CTC? Members get great legal assistance.

orena45 - Member
Maximum of 6mm upstand for dropped crossings. Is it a new construction that's already potholed, or an older one that's potholed and not been fixed?

The latter. Now upgraded too!

I'm an ex lawyer, so it's a bit of fun for me. I'm currently compiling an "expert" report. I might even upload it!

mcmoonter - Member
Trashed your watch on Monday.

Dinged your wheel on Tuesday.

I was making love by Wednesday?

sounds like a brilliant idea because local councils aren't already reluctant enough to increase the amount of cyclepaths. 🙄

Are you really suing a cash strapped local authority over minor damage to a bike because you failed to steer around a pothole?

Edinburgh City Council can hardly be considered cash strapped. They're spending a billion quid on a tram system which they forecast will run at a loss. Ohhhhh.

I'd say its a pretty low thing to do. Instead of trying to make a quick buck out of it at the tax payer's expense, why not do something positive like get in touch with the relevant council officer and report the problem and see if anything can be done about it.

Many people on here have been working with the council on trail repair projects organised by TJ and Colin etc, doing something positive about things instead of trying to make their jobs harder by doing things like this. Cycle networks etc are desperately underfunded in CEC. Suing them doesn't really help things get any better. Sad state of affairs.

Did you get whiplash as well ? 🙄

[i]I'm an ex lawyer, so it's a bit of fun for me. I'm currently compiling an "expert" report. I might even upload it![/i]

It's a bit of 'fun' for you and a waste of time/money for the council and tax/rate payers - congratulations for been an ar5e.

Once a lawyer, always a lawyer... 👿

Instead of trying to make a quick buck out of it at the tax payer's expense, why not do something positive like get in touch with the relevant council officer and report the problem and see if anything can be done about it.

He will only 'make a quick buck' if the council were already aware of it and failed to correct the problem (or built it wrong in the first place), so not really 'unfair' on the council.

This must be a troll??

Agree with jim and br. Bet if it was out on a trail you'd shrug it off as unfortunate and put it down to user error but here it must be someone else's fault.

I got a pinch flat on the sustrans route out towards Aberlady on a dodgy bit of footpath but didn't even consider suing the council, just paid a bit more attention to the surface and slowed down.

>The tarmac before a kerbstone had become a pothole and the exposed kerb pinched the tyre and dented the rim.<

Allegedly.

Couldn't you fix it with a lump of dodgy carbon - you being an ex Lawyer an' all?

Oh dear, the moralising & haterz of stw have appeared.

The pothole in question was unknown to me, under a puddle, and unavoidable at the time as the rest of the (shared) path was occupied by pedestrians.

DougD - Member
This must be a troll??

Agree with jim and br. Bet if it was out on a trail you'd shrug it off as unfortunate and put it down to user error but here it has to be someoen else's fault

Well duh! Of course I would! A trail is a trail. A cyclepath is made to standards and is meant to be safe and encourage cycling. The 2 could not be more diffeernt.

I am out £130, and this would have been higher had I not done the work myself to save costs. There are recognised standards that cyclepaths are to be made to. This clearly failed. There were other issues with it that I know have caused accidents for other cyclists. COEC have so far told me to "do one" (and told me the kerb presents no issues) despite me telling them I'd accept a good offer.

I'm only claiming less than a monthly Coundil tax payment back, why should they get away with not having cyclpaths that are safe?

By reporting it your helping everybody else but by sueing your helping your self, especially considering your ability to just fix it.

So, I'm doing both, and everybody wins.

suppose everyone did this. councils would not be thinking "well we really must put much more funding into cyclepaths to pay for maintenance as we extend our networks". they would be thinking "well we can afford to extend or maintain and we don't want more pratts suing us so...."

Supposing everyone did this?

There are very few problems like this that I am aware of. Cyclepaths would be better.

It's pretty pathetic, suing over a puncture, you can't argue with that. It's even pettier than ambulance chasing.

As such a hot shot lawyer yourself you'll know it is going to cost the council thousands to resolve, and take up a pointless amount of people's time which would be better focused on more positive tasks.

Why not try and be part of the solution and not part of the problem?

Wha?! People disagree with suing the council for crap cycle paths?
Jeez. Get to it Al.

[i]Why not try and be part of the solution and not part of the problem?[/i]

Seriously? Get down there with a bucket of tar?

bigjim - Member
It's pretty pathetic, suing over a puncture, you can't argue with that. It's even pettier than ambulance chasing.

Is there a need to get personal Jim? How do I beome part of the solution? Get employed as a contractor for the council who looks after cycle paths?

You would of course hold this position if you'd trashed a £200 wheel in similar circumstances?

How the Council deals with this is up to them - it needn't cost thoudsands at all - I've already written to them with details, and they'll get another chance to settle before I sue.

Probably deal with it the same way as broken car wheels after hitting a pothole in the road or tripping up on loose/broken paving on our streets

ie blame the contractors and pass it on to their insurers 🙄

Everything seems to be "contracted out" these days and the blame gets passed around. Local kids park has a huge hole in the tarmaced area, council don't know who is responsible because it has been "contracted out" so often! They think it is the current " landlords" responsibility but they say it is not, the circle continues!!

It is becoming ridiculous and will get worse before it gets better 😕

Not getting personal, just pointing out that you will know better than most that your legal proceedings will cost the council considerable money and time, which could have otherwise been spent on better things than engaging you in your quote 'bit of fun'.

I certainly wouldn't sue over a puncture and a dented rim, as you ask. If I really felt so aggrieved about it, which is unlikely, I'd do as I suggested above and put my energy into something positive and not trying to make some money and cost the council large sums of money.

Good for you.

🙂

cynic-al - Member

The pothole in question was unknown to me, under a puddle, and unavoidable at the time as the rest of the (shared) path was occupied by pedestrians.

😆

There's two long levers attached to your handlebars, next time you come across an "unavoidable obstacle", pull on them and you'll stop.

[url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/ ]How to avoid embarrassing yourself in the future.[/url]

HTH. 😉

so anyway, the council will have a set of standard drawings as to the construction of all carriageway/footway. this will have the relevant dimensions. there is a maximum 6mm upstand for any kerb on a footway. the generally agreed depth of a defect is 25mm. below that and it would usually be a low priority repair.
as i have said on here before, the council should have a set regime of inspections of and given piece of their highway network. this should include driven and walked inspections. they have to document that they keep up with this regime. whilst they will have an inspection regime, it is also accepted that potholes can develop in relatively short periods of time so they rely on reports of ad hoc defects. these are then added into an inspectors daily inspection regime and a repair scheduled. if the defectis not reported but it is within their inspection window then you are unlikely to get anywhere unless the council cant be arsed to argue it. if it can be proved that the council are not sticking to their inspection regime then you have a case. any of the above information should be available through a freedom of information act request. hth.

They say they inspected it AFTER the incident and that there is no issue.

no issue or not of high importance? if they did it as an ad hoc defect report inbetween their scheduled inspections then its now down to you to prove that their inspection regime is insufficient/sub-standard. good luck with that.
they should have measured the defect and as such should have a record of their measurement. if its against a dropped kerb then if its relatively new then any greater then 6mm is a trip hazard, but only really applies if it was done relatively recently (6-7 years or so).

[url= http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=highway%20inspection%20regime&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CDgQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukroadsliaisongroup.org%2Fdownload.cfm%2Fdocid%2FC7214A5B-66E1-4994-AA7FBAC360DC5CC7&ei=iPLVUYzmI-jC0QWq_oGADQ&usg=AFQjCNH25Ppid74DKEAQaJwDaA51iqcRzA&sig2=PJKpRrkU2dtFYgVR5aRHwQ ]this will put you to sleep.[/url]

Part of the scheduled maintenance - so I just have to prove it is an issue Shirley?

It's clearly an ancient defect, not new at all.

So to extend the car equivalent, you drove at speed into an obstacle that you could not fully see without slowing or taking an precautionary action and damage you wheel as a result.

Rather than learn a lesson from your mistake and better the facility for everyone one else using it you decide to shift the blame from yourself an your poor judgement onto the council who have many miles of public highway to maintain and it is likely this defect may not have been reported or may have deteriorated since the last inspection.

And to top if off you choose to boast about it on an Internet forum in the rom of a question as surely as a lawyer you are well aware that the council will have guidelines on construction?

KEEP 'EM COMING, GREAT STUFF!

Sue em, next time it could be a child's face!

Those who are complaining about al's actions, what action do you propose to get the council to make the facility better for everyone? Given that apparently they think it is fine as it is?

I have personal experience of similar, having reported several issues on the local cyclepaths and pavements (using the online problem report system rather than suing them) and been told that actually they're fine. How do you suggest I get the council to take action? I'll quite happily sue the council if I fall off on the bit I've complained is bumpy (it's a brand new resurfaced bit which didn't used to be bumpy before they resurfaced) or get hit by a car on the bit where I've complained the road markings are worn out - I even have the evidence that they're aware of the problem and don't consider it something worth fixing, easy win!

Indeed - the Council are telling me this one is fine.

Any mouth-foamers should have a look here to see some claims that have been made arising from incidents like mine, and RTCs. The author of the site appears to be MAKING A PROFIT FROM THIS!

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/expert_casebook.html

My favourite: "Cyclist using cycle lane hit by car turning left at junction. Attempt to claim contributory negligence on the grounds that the cycle lane was clearly an unsafe place to be. Settled in favour of the cyclist."

"Cyclist in school group fell on steep moorland hill, injuring following cyclist. Engaged by plaintiff in claim against school, to assess quality of supervision of group. Attended court, but case stopped when it became clear that the plaintiff had wrongly identified the crash location and was an unreliable witness."

WTF...

Anyway... If the council told you to clear off, then they think cycle paths that buckle wheels are fine... go after them.